Several comments on previous bus articles expressed an interest in Dina, or to be correct, DIesel NAcional, S.A (now known as Consorcio G Grupo Dina, S.A. de C.V.). For those not familiar, Dina is a long-time maker of cars, trucks, and buses in Mexico founded in the city of Sahagun, in the state of Hidalgo. It has expanded to a large conglomerate today that markets its products in Mexico, throughout Central and South America, parts of Europe, and the Middle East. During a merger with Motor Coach Industries (MCI) in the ‘90s, the company also sold coaches in the US.

1950’s and early 1960’s Dina Fiat Buses

Dina was founded in 1951, majority owned by the government of Mexico with a minority interest by Fiat. The company assembled versions of Fiat’s bus and truck models, and also the 500, 1100 and 1400 automobiles throughout the 1950’s. That partnership ended in 1961 and in 1963, Dina joined with Renault to assemble versions of that company’s D-500 and D-700 buses.

And as highlighted in Dan Andreina’s superb article here, and in comments by “twoeightythree” in our Sultana bus article, they also license built versions of the Renault Alpine…

Not satisfied with Renault’s coaches, and looking for a larger and more substantial bus, Dina found a willing partner in Flxible, the Loudonville Ohio-based manufacturer of both transit and intercity coaches. An agreement was reached and in 1964, Dina was licensed to assemble versions of the Flxible Flxliner 35 ft intercity coach.

Dina named this model the “Olympico” – it was essentially equivalent to the Flxliner with a “Torsilastic” suspension, GM 8V71 or Cummins NT/NH engines, and Spicer manual transmission. Dina subsequently purchased the tooling for this bus when Flxible exited the intercity market in 1969 – and continued to build this model through 1987 – quite a long production run. Fun fact: The bus was marketed as the Dina Flxible 311 until 1968 when its name was changed to Olympico in honor of the 1968 Olympic Games held in Mexico City.

To help with both their truck and bus operations, Dina reached an agreement with Cummins in 1968, and began producing Cummins diesel engines under license…

The company made several different versions of the Flx through the years…here is an “Avante” with a more squared-up front area and modern window treatment, mimicking the styling of Eagle buses from this period.

This is a late 80’s “Dorado”, a 40 ft version that came with the GM 6V92 TA. While it and the Avante could be fitted with an Allison automatic, Mexican operators preferred mostly manual transmissions.

Dina partnered again with another manufacturer in 1990 and reached agreement with Marcopolo SA of Brazil to import bodies of their large intercity coach to mate with a Dina chassis. This bus was named the Viaggio – and when Dina and Motor Coach Industries (MCI) entered into a merger in 1994, MCI marketed this model in the US as the Viaggio 1000. These were large buses, 102 in wide and 45 ft in length – they typically had GM 60 Series engines with Allison automatic transmissions. Depending upon whether they had a lavatory, they could seat 52-56 passengers.

The Viaggio sold well, to both intercity and tour operators, but in 2000 Dina’s then financial problems led to a rupture in their merger with MCI, and the collaboration ended.

F11 (35 ft)

F12 (40 ft)

F14 (45 ft)

Refocusing back to their non-US markets, the company’s next intercity coaches were the F-series; the F-11 through F-14 – the F14 being a lengthened three axle version. These were Dina’s first intercity coaches designed entirely in-house.

The company went through some tough financial difficulties in the early to mid-2000’s, but appears to be coming back with a variety of urban and intercity coaches.

Today, the company’s main intercity coach is the Buller – 40 foot long, seating 46 passengers. Dina has now partnered with Scania and the Buller uses a Scania L6 Turbodiesel, good for 360 hp and 1365 ft lbs of torque. Aerodynamics seems to be the primary factor in bus design these days – I can appreciate the reduced operating costs in fuel, but am not a fan of how they look.

Call me old school, but of all the models above, I think the Flxliner/Olympico is the most attractive…

Another interesting read about a brand I knew nothing about. I was a bit surprised to see the Scania engine, but after some further reading on the interwebs I learned that Scania is the market-leader for long-distance buses in Mexico and that they also supply a growing number of city-buses. So the Swedish truck- and bus manufacturer is already well represented there.

And now I can’t wait for a big Dina bus with Scania’s 16.4 liter V8 stuffed in the back…

The Cummins 7.7 liter V8 from the article was also used in the UK Ford D-series, the tractor below has one under its cab.

Thanks for this. These were by far the most common intercity buses in the Baja area back in the day; the bus station in Tijuana was full of them. And like all Mexican buses back then, they apparently were all without any sort of muffler. The distinctive hoary sound of the Cummins V8 diesels (and accompanying smoke) was just another part of the strong sounds and smells of Mexico at the time.

The local buses were Dina school-bus type units, with IH Lodestar cabs, and also those same Cummins diesels. I wish I had taken some home movies of them at the time.

Thanks Jim! I feel so honored to be mentioned in a Curbside Classic article! I must point out that I learned about DINA’s association with Renault from Don Andreina’s recent comprehensive article on the Alpine A310.

My father told me about DINA when I was a kid and I was fascinated that there was this company other than the Big Three building vehicles in Mexico.

I can still hear the engine and the driver rowing through the gears when I recall riding in DINA buses on several visits to Mexico. As noted in the article, manual transmissions were heavily favored in that country.

I’m curious why automatics were slow to catch on for Mexican buses. Was it just a cost thing? I know commercial buyers are sometimes loath to spend money on stuff that seems too oriented toward mere operator comfort/convenience.

How so? (I’m not arguing, I’m curious, as I’ve never driven anything larger than a rental moving van.)

slow_joe_crow

Posted August 22, 2016 at 12:31 AM

I think at the time, running costs, reliability concerns and fuel efficiency would keep long distance buses running manuals rather than autos. City buses in stop and go operation at low speeds benefited more from automatics. This has changed in the last 2 decades as lock up torque converters, electronic controls and more ratios have made automatics more usable for long distance applications that require wider speed ranges and operators have more situations where it is useful to not have a clutch

Having driven buses with automatics and stick shifts, I can assure you that the automatic wins hands down. A 40′ shift linkage is not conducive to easy shifting and double clutching. I defy you to find me one over-the-road bus driver that drove both sticks and automatics, and didn’t think the automatic was much easier.

A truck, with its shifter coming directly out of the transmission, can be fun to drive, if one has mastered the particular transmission.

Interesting article and pictures. In 1992, my wife and I rode a Dina Olympico bus from the Acapulco airport to our hotel. We saw plenty of Dina trucks and buses around town as well, and as Paul says, you had no doubt as to what was under the hood.

Thanks for another great article Jim. The newer mirrors on the Dorado remind me of seeing a 1970’s (?) Leyland double decker open top bus in the city recently that had similar mirrors fitted – even more jarring in that case!